Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/438

SMT.SHANTI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANCE GIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH.NARAYAN SINGH

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 14.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.126/2014 by District Commission, Guna)

 

SMT. SHANTI DEVI PRAJAPATI,

W/O SHRI BABULAL PRAJAPATI,

R/O OPPOSITE DHARAMSHALA, KARNAIL GANJ,

GUNA (M.P.)                                                                                                     … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1  BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED,

1. B. ROAD, GUNA (M.P.)

 

2. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.

    MAIDA MILL OPPOSITE SBI,

    M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                  …. RESPONDENTS.  

 

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                       

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Narayan Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Uday Raj Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  22.07.2024)

 

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short ‘District Commission’) in

 

-2-

C.C.No.126/2014 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant for the purposes of earning her livelihood by means of self-employment had purchased a truck on 06.05.2011 after getting it financed from the opposite party no.2. The subject truck was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 04.06.2012 to 03.06.2013. The subject vehicle met with an accident on 12.03.2013 of which FIR was lodged with the police and the insurance company was also informed. The opposite party no.1-finance company was also informed. The insurance company appointed surveyor. At the instructions of the Surveyor, the vehicle was brought to Guna thereafter it was instructed to take the vehicle to Indore. She spent Rs.25,000/- for bringing the truck to Guna and then Indore. She spent Rs.70,000/- in repairs of the vehicle but the insurance company did not pay the claim. It is alleged that on 02.06.2014 some persons seized the subject vehicle on the ground that there are outstanding dues of financed amount on the complainant. 

3.                Aggreived complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission which was dismissed by the District Commission by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

 

-3-

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company argued that the insurance company had already paid the amount as assessed by the surveyor to the repairer. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-finance company argued that since the complainant failed to deposit the installments regularly therefore after notice the vehicle was repossessed by the finance company. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. He has submitted that in support of his contentions he has filed an application IA-1 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with seven documents as per list.  

7.                Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings, we are of a considered view that the matter needs to be decided afresh after considering the newly documents filed by the parties in support of their respective contentions. In these circumstances, we allow the application IA-1 and the documents are directed to be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the opposite party no.2 to the

 

-4-

complainant on the date of appearance of the parties before the District Commission.  

8.                Thus, by setting aside the impugned order we remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law in the light of the newly filed documents.  The documents filed by the respondent no.2 with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC be sent to the District Commission after retaining copy of the same, along with the record.

9.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.08.2024.

10.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. All the points involved in the matter are kept open. Parties are at liberty to file any additional evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions.

11.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is stands disposed of.  No order as to costs.

 

             (A. K. Tiwari)              (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                  Acting President                      Member